Paradigms of Author/Creator Property Rights in Intellectual Property Law

Ethical Implications for the Acquisition, Access, and Control of Genetic Information
  • Robin Mackenzie


This paper seeks to examine the theoretical models which underlie intellectual property law today and the ethical implications of these insofaras they impact on the acquisition, access and control of genetic information. I shall analyse some present attempts to combine legal regulation of biotechnology with ownership in order to argue that intellectual property law must be revisioned or reimagined in order to overcome the ethical shortcomings which its present paradigms embody.


Intellectual Property Indigenous People Uruguay Round Intellectual Property Protection Compulsory License 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aoki, K. (1996) ‘(Intellectual) Property and Sovereignty: Notes towards a Cultural Geography of Authorship’, Stanford Law Review, Vol. 48, p. 1293. Regrettably, a detailed consideration of how far this model might be capable of offering appropriate protection to the rights and interests of nonwestern people and their knowledge is outside the scope of this article. A helpful blend of theoretical and pragmatic viewpoints here may be found inCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aoki, K. (1993/4), ‘Authors, Inventors and Trademark Owners: Private Intellectual Property and the Public Domain’, Columbia-VLA Journal of Law and the Arts, Vol, 18 Part I, p. 1; Part II, p. 191.Google Scholar
  3. Bently, L. and Sherman, B. (1995),‘The Ethics of Patenting: Towards a Transgenic Patent System’, Medical Law Review, Vol. 3, p. 275.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beyleveld, D. and Brownsword, R. (1993) Mice, Morality and Patents, Common Law Institute of Intellectual Property: London.Google Scholar
  5. Boyle, J. (1996) Shamans, Software and Spleens, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  6. Boyle, J. (1988), ‘The Search for an Author: Shakespeare and the Framers’, American University Law Review, Vol. 37, p. 625.Google Scholar
  7. Brush, S. and Stabinsky, D. (eds.) (1996) Valuing local knowledge: indigenous people and intellectual property rights Island Press: Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  8. Byrne, J. (1995) ‘Changes at the frontier of intellectual property law: an overview of the changes required by GATT’, Duquesne Law Review, Vol. 34, p. 121.Google Scholar
  9. Cherensky, S. (1993) A penny for their thoughts: employee-inventors, preinvention assignment agreements, property and personhood. California Law Review, Vol. 81, p. 597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Comment (1986), ‘Intellectual piracy captures the attention of the President and Congress’, National Journal 22 February, p. 443.Google Scholar
  11. Crespi, S. [1995] ‘Biotechnology Patenting: the Wicked Animal Must Defend Itself., p. 431.Google Scholar
  12. Desai, A. (1989) ‘India and the Uruguay Round’, Journal of World Trade Law, Vol. 39, p. 47.Google Scholar
  13. Drahos, P. (1996), A philosophy of intellectual property, Dartmouth: Aldershot.Google Scholar
  14. Fisher, W. (1988) ‘Reconstructing the fair use doctrine’, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 101, p. 1659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ford, R. [1997] ‘The Morality of Biotech Patents: Differing Legal Obligations in Europe’, European Intellectual Property Review, p. 315.Google Scholar
  16. Jaszi, P. (1991) ‘Toward a Theory of Copyright: the Metamorphoses of Authorship’, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 47, p. 455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. M.A. Leaffer, M. (1991) ‘Protecting United States intellectual property abroad: toward a new multilateralism’, Iowa Law Review, Vol. 76, p. 273.Google Scholar
  18. Llewellyn, M. [1997] ‘The Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions’, p. 115.Google Scholar
  19. Mossinghoff, G. (1987) ‘Research based pharmaceutical companies: the need for increased patent protection worldwide’, Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 2, p. 307.Google Scholar
  20. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (1995), Human Tissue: Ethical and Legal Issues, Nuffield: London.Google Scholar
  21. Penrose, E. (1951) The Economics of the International Patent System John Hopkins: Baltimore.Google Scholar
  22. Reich, R. [1987] ‘Entrepreneurship Reconsidered: the Team as Hero’, Harvard Business Review p. 77.Google Scholar
  23. Reichman, J. (1995) ‘Universal minimum standards of intellectual property protection under the TRIPs component of the WTO agreement’, International Lawyer, Vol. 29, p. 345.Google Scholar
  24. Rural Advancement Federation International. (1994) ‘Bioprospecting/biopiracy and Indigenous Peoples’, RAFI Communique Nov/Dec p. 1.Google Scholar
  25. Sherer, F. (1980) Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance. 2d ed., Rand McNally: Chicago.Google Scholar
  26. Straus, J. (1995), ‘Patenting Human Genes in Europe: Past Developments and Prospects for the Future’, IIC, Vol. 26, p. 920.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. A. Te Pareake Mead, A. (1997) Resisting the Gene Raiders, New Internationalist, Vol 297, p. 26.Google Scholar
  28. Woodmansee, M. (1984) ‘The Genius and the Copyright: Economic and Legal Conditions of the Emergence of the “Author”, Eighteenth Century Studies, Vol. 17, p. 425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robin Mackenzie
    • 1
  1. 1.School of LawUniversity of Kent CanterburyUK

Personalised recommendations